IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i11p417-d436757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest Area Change in the Shifting Landscape Mosaic of the Continental United States from 2001 to 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Kurt Riitters

    (USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA)

  • Karen Schleeweis

    (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT 84401, USA)

  • Jennifer Costanza

    (USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA)

Abstract

The landscape context (i.e., anthropogenic setting) of forest change partly determines the social-ecological outcomes of the change. Furthermore, forest change occurs within, is constrained by, and contributes to a dynamic landscape context. We illustrate how information about local landscape context can be incorporated into regional assessments of forest area change. We examined the status and change of forest area in the continental United States from 2001 to 2016, quantifying landscape context by using a landscape mosaic classification that describes the dominance and interface (i.e., juxtaposition) of developed and agriculture land in relation to forest and other land. The mosaic class changed for five percent of total land area and three percent of total forest area. The least stable classes were those comprising the developed interface. Forest loss rates were highest in developed-dominated landscapes, but the forest area in those landscapes increased by 18 percent as the expansion of developed landscapes assimilated more forest area than was lost from earlier developed landscapes. Conversely, forest loss rates were lowest in agriculture-dominated landscapes where there was a net loss of five percent of forest area, even as the area of those landscapes also increased. Exposure of all land to nearby forest removal, fire, and stress was highest in natural-dominated landscapes, while exposure to nearby increases in developed and agriculture land was highest in developed- and agriculture-dominated landscapes. We discuss applications of our approach for mapping, monitoring, and modeling landscape and land use change.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurt Riitters & Karen Schleeweis & Jennifer Costanza, 2020. "Forest Area Change in the Shifting Landscape Mosaic of the Continental United States from 2001 to 2016," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:11:p:417-:d:436757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/11/417/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/11/417/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Lewis, David J., 2010. "An economic framework for forecasting land-use and ecosystem change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 98-116, April.
    3. Bo Sun & Derek T. Robinson, 2018. "Comparison of Statistical Approaches for Modelling Land-Use Change," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-33, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanting Zheng & Sai Zhao & Jinyuan Huang & Aifeng Lv, 2021. "Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Pattern and Mechanism of Land Use Mixture: Evidence from China’s County Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Heying Li & Jiayao Wang & Jianchen Zhang & Fen Qin & Jiyuan Hu & Zheng Zhou, 2021. "Analysis of Characteristics and Driving Factors of Wetland Landscape Pattern Change in Henan Province from 1980 to 2015," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., 2008. "Quantifying the Benefits of Conservation Auctions: Evidence from an Economic Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    2. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    3. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    4. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    5. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    6. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    7. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    8. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    9. Wanhong Yang & Madhu Khanna & Richard Farnsworth & Hayri Önal, 2005. "Is Geographical Targeting Cost-Effective? The Case of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 70-88.
    10. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S. & Breustedt, G., 2012. "Auctioning outcome-based conservation contracts," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    12. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    13. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2009. "Predicting the performance of conservation tenders when information on bidders's costs is limited," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48171, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    15. Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-6, April.
    16. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2006. "Using Field Experiments to Explore the Use of Multiple Bidding Rounds in Conservation Auctions," Discussion Papers 25801, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Jacobs, Keri L. & Thurman, Walter N. & Marra, Michele C., 2011. "How Farmers Bid Into the Conservation Reserve Program: An Empirical Analysis of CRP Offers Data," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103675, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Cattaneo, Andrea & Bucholtz, Shawn & Dewbre, Joe & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2002. "The Crp Balancing Act: Trading Off Costs And Multiple Environmental Benefits," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19810, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Balmford, Ben & Collins, Joseph & Day, Brett & Lindsay, Luke & Peacock, James, 2023. "Pricing rules for PES auctions: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    20. Onianwa, Odili & Wheelock, Gerald & Gyawali, Buddhi Raj, 2003. "Factors Affecting Participation Behavior Of Limited Resource Farmers In Cost-Share Programs In Alabama," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22244, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:11:p:417-:d:436757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.